6 ms·

Announcing Docker 1.1.0

98 points by bpierre 12y ago

grakic 12y ago
Using tar file as context for docker build we can have builder containers building images for new containers: docker run builder | docker build -
jaytaylor 12y ago
Do they have Mac OSX support yet? How far out is it?
- serverholic 12y ago
  Most likely never. Docker relies on a linux kernel extension which, as you can probably guess, requires linux.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - skrebbel 12y ago
    I don't understand that. Other kernels may offer features that are similar enough to allow one to implement a large part of Docker on top of it. Nowhere in "docker run -i -t ubuntu /bin/bash" does it say something about LXC. Example in point: Spoon Studio, a very Windowsy application that does, on Windows, something not at all unlike what LXC does [1]. It allows you to add one layer of filesystem (just one, so no commits) over the host OS's filesystem and then run applications inside there, contained very much like how processes are contained inside Docker containers. If this is possible right now (and actually these guys were around before dotcloud was even founded), then I don't see why at some point Docker couldn't come available on multiple platforms. (but I might also completely misunderstand some fundamental thing that makes LXC/Docker completely unlike Spoon and friends) [1] https://spoon.net/studio https://spoon.net/studio EDIT: downvoters, if i'm a moron, please have the decency to tell me why.
    - akerl_ 12y ago
      Docker is based heavily on libcontainer (their replacement for LXC), which is based very heavily on kernel namespaces and cgroups. Those features are Linux-specific, and are a very important and fundamental part of what lets Docker containers work. Somebody could totally write another container backend to replace libcontainer that supported the mach kernel or other BSDs or Hurd or whatever, but it would likely require a lot of work (ongoing work, considering the speed at which Docker is changing over time).
      - skrebbel 12y ago
        That's what I'm saying. I'm really appalled at the amount of downvotes that I'm getting for having the guts to say "Windows" in a Docker thread, but with a gigantic effort, it's totally imaginable to have a Docker-like system on other kernels than Linux. People who can't imagine that are just, well, unimaginative.
    - Ricapar 12y ago
      Because your entire post reads like an ad for Spoon Studio. Also, what does "Nowhere in 'docker run -i -t ubuntu /bin/bash' does it say something about LXC." even mean? Docker is built upon LXC features. It needs them to work. LXC not there? It's not gonna work.
      - ojilles 12y ago
        By that logic, mono should not exist. http://www.mono-project.com/What_is_Mono http://www.mono-project.com/What_is_Mono
        echaozh 12y ago
        I think if people really want something like docker on Windows or MacOSX, they should go out and write themselves one. For docker guys, obviously, they don't find it an attractive market. Who will run MacOSX in server farms anyway? If you're using Windows already, why not spend more for some fancy virtualization or container like products, say from VMWare? Mono is more like a different implementation of interesting languages. If you like C#, you can use mono to write and run on Linux. If you want to write Windows programs, you won't use mono.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- pella 12y ago
  only OS X Docker client exist. "The Docker Engine uses Linux-specific kernel features, so to run it on OS X we need to use a lightweight virtual machine (vm). You use the OS X Docker client to control the virtualized Docker Engine to build, run, and manage Docker containers. To make this process easier, we've designed a helper application called Boot2Docker that installs the virtual machine and runs the Docker daemon." https://docs.docker.com/installation/mac/ https://docs.docker.com/installation/mac/
- vectorpush 12y ago
  Why would one want OSX support for docker anyway? Does anyone actually deploy OSX in a server environment? This is not a criticism, just a curiosity.
  - kennu 12y ago
    Because in the typical Docker workflow, developers (who often use OS X) build container images on their computers. Anyway, boot2docker works really well nowadays. Even individual port forwarding has been eliminated by using a virtual IP address where all exposed ports are available.
    - vectorpush 12y ago
      Ah. I just assumed that OSX devops tested their work on a linux VM, I didn't realize it was common to build on OSX then deploy to linux production, I'd have guessed that would be pretty error prone.
  - andrewflnr 12y ago
    Servers aren't the only thing Docker is useful for. I made the plunge to isolate a GUI app and its daemons from my desktop (krita was trying to run KDE daemons on my xfce system, grr). Something like that might be useful. Another possibility is nice development servers, so you can run something in close to the same environment on your work computer as your servers.
    - vectorpush 12y ago
      Good point, I suppose docker is pretty ideal for packaging up a system configuration of any type.
  - magnetikonline 12y ago
    It's very handy for development instances of your apps/services too. Often nicer/faster than using Vagrant if that's your bag. Something I plugged together recently - a W3C HTML5 validator instance in a Docker container: https://github.com/magnetikonline/dockerhtml5validator https://github.com/magnetikonline/dockerhtml5validator proving to be really useful vs. my old method of spinning this all up in a VirtualBox instance.
- DrJ 12y ago
  may I interest you in dvm [http://hw-ops.com/blog/2014/01/07/introducing-dvm-docker-in-a-box-for-unsupported-platforms/ http://hw-ops.com/blog/2014/01/07/introducing-dvm-docker-in-...] it's not native, but it makes playing with docker containers from mac osx straight forward.
ninjay 12y ago
How is backwards compatibility with Docker? Say I make a container with 1.1.0. Can I still run it on Amazon Elastic Beanstalk (1.0.0)?
- shykes 12y ago
  Yes, all containers are backwards compatible, pretty much to the first version. In general backwards compatibility is a big deal in the Docker project - breaking changes are taken very seriously and we try to avoid them as much as humanly possible. That applies to the container image format, Dockerfile format, remote API and command-line interface. It's also important to preserve portability across drivers. For example different storage drivers (aufs, btrfs, devicemapper etc) don't affect the format of the images they produce.
magnetikonline 12y ago
Something I asked @docker on Twitter - where are these newer builds for Ubuntu 14.04/12.04? https://docs.docker.com/installation/ubuntulinux/ https://docs.docker.com/installation/ubuntulinux/ Would love to be able to move to at least the 1.0 stable.

98 points by bpierre 12y ago

Using tar file as context for docker build we can have builder containers building images for new containers: docker run builder | docker build -

jaytaylor 12y ago

Do they have Mac OSX support yet? How far out is it?

serverholic 12y ago
Most likely never. Docker relies on a linux kernel extension which, as you can probably guess, requires linux.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- skrebbel 12y ago
  I don't understand that. Other kernels may offer features that are similar enough to allow one to implement a large part of Docker on top of it. Nowhere in "docker run -i -t ubuntu /bin/bash" does it say something about LXC. Example in point: Spoon Studio, a very Windowsy application that does, on Windows, something not at all unlike what LXC does [1]. It allows you to add one layer of filesystem (just one, so no commits) over the host OS's filesystem and then run applications inside there, contained very much like how processes are contained inside Docker containers. If this is possible right now (and actually these guys were around before dotcloud was even founded), then I don't see why at some point Docker couldn't come available on multiple platforms. (but I might also completely misunderstand some fundamental thing that makes LXC/Docker completely unlike Spoon and friends) [1] https://spoon.net/studio https://spoon.net/studio EDIT: downvoters, if i'm a moron, please have the decency to tell me why.
  - akerl_ 12y ago
    Docker is based heavily on libcontainer (their replacement for LXC), which is based very heavily on kernel namespaces and cgroups. Those features are Linux-specific, and are a very important and fundamental part of what lets Docker containers work. Somebody could totally write another container backend to replace libcontainer that supported the mach kernel or other BSDs or Hurd or whatever, but it would likely require a lot of work (ongoing work, considering the speed at which Docker is changing over time).
    - skrebbel 12y ago
      That's what I'm saying. I'm really appalled at the amount of downvotes that I'm getting for having the guts to say "Windows" in a Docker thread, but with a gigantic effort, it's totally imaginable to have a Docker-like system on other kernels than Linux. People who can't imagine that are just, well, unimaginative.
  - Ricapar 12y ago
    Because your entire post reads like an ad for Spoon Studio. Also, what does "Nowhere in 'docker run -i -t ubuntu /bin/bash' does it say something about LXC." even mean? Docker is built upon LXC features. It needs them to work. LXC not there? It's not gonna work.
    - ojilles 12y ago
      By that logic, mono should not exist. http://www.mono-project.com/What_is_Mono http://www.mono-project.com/What_is_Mono
      - echaozh 12y ago
        I think if people really want something like docker on Windows or MacOSX, they should go out and write themselves one. For docker guys, obviously, they don't find it an attractive market. Who will run MacOSX in server farms anyway? If you're using Windows already, why not spend more for some fancy virtualization or container like products, say from VMWare? Mono is more like a different implementation of interesting languages. If you like C#, you can use mono to write and run on Linux. If you want to write Windows programs, you won't use mono.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
pella 12y ago
only OS X Docker client exist. "The Docker Engine uses Linux-specific kernel features, so to run it on OS X we need to use a lightweight virtual machine (vm). You use the OS X Docker client to control the virtualized Docker Engine to build, run, and manage Docker containers. To make this process easier, we've designed a helper application called Boot2Docker that installs the virtual machine and runs the Docker daemon." https://docs.docker.com/installation/mac/ https://docs.docker.com/installation/mac/
vectorpush 12y ago
Why would one want OSX support for docker anyway? Does anyone actually deploy OSX in a server environment? This is not a criticism, just a curiosity.
- kennu 12y ago
  Because in the typical Docker workflow, developers (who often use OS X) build container images on their computers. Anyway, boot2docker works really well nowadays. Even individual port forwarding has been eliminated by using a virtual IP address where all exposed ports are available.
  - vectorpush 12y ago
    Ah. I just assumed that OSX devops tested their work on a linux VM, I didn't realize it was common to build on OSX then deploy to linux production, I'd have guessed that would be pretty error prone.
- andrewflnr 12y ago
  Servers aren't the only thing Docker is useful for. I made the plunge to isolate a GUI app and its daemons from my desktop (krita was trying to run KDE daemons on my xfce system, grr). Something like that might be useful. Another possibility is nice development servers, so you can run something in close to the same environment on your work computer as your servers.
  - vectorpush 12y ago
    Good point, I suppose docker is pretty ideal for packaging up a system configuration of any type.
- magnetikonline 12y ago
  It's very handy for development instances of your apps/services too. Often nicer/faster than using Vagrant if that's your bag. Something I plugged together recently - a W3C HTML5 validator instance in a Docker container: https://github.com/magnetikonline/dockerhtml5validator https://github.com/magnetikonline/dockerhtml5validator proving to be really useful vs. my old method of spinning this all up in a VirtualBox instance.
DrJ 12y ago
may I interest you in dvm [http://hw-ops.com/blog/2014/01/07/introducing-dvm-docker-in-a-box-for-unsupported-platforms/ http://hw-ops.com/blog/2014/01/07/introducing-dvm-docker-in-...] it's not native, but it makes playing with docker containers from mac osx straight forward.

ninjay 12y ago

How is backwards compatibility with Docker? Say I make a container with 1.1.0. Can I still run it on Amazon Elastic Beanstalk (1.0.0)?

shykes 12y ago
Yes, all containers are backwards compatible, pretty much to the first version. In general backwards compatibility is a big deal in the Docker project - breaking changes are taken very seriously and we try to avoid them as much as humanly possible. That applies to the container image format, Dockerfile format, remote API and command-line interface. It's also important to preserve portability across drivers. For example different storage drivers (aufs, btrfs, devicemapper etc) don't affect the format of the images they produce.

magnetikonline 12y ago

Something I asked @docker on Twitter - where are these newer builds for Ubuntu 14.04/12.04? https://docs.docker.com/installation/ubuntulinux/ https://docs.docker.com/installation/ubuntulinux/ Would love to be able to move to at least the 1.0 stable.